Judge: Holly J. Fujie, Case: 21STCV43535, Date: 2023-02-24 Tentative Ruling
DEPARTMENT 56 JUDGE HOLLY J. FUJIE, LAW AND MOTION RULINGS. The court makes every effort to post tentative rulings by 5.00 pm of the court day before the hearing. The tentative ruling will not become the final ruling until the hearing [see CRC 3.1308(a)(2)], and are also available in the courtroom on the day of the hearing [see CRC 3.1308(b)]. If the parties wish to submit on the tentative ruling and avoid a court appearance, all counsel must agree and choose which counsel will give notice. That counsel must 1) call Dept 56 by 8:30 a.m. on the day of the hearing (213/633-0656) and state that all parties will submit on the tentative ruling, and 2) serve notice of the ruling on all parties. If any party declines to submit on the tentative ruling, then no telephone call is necessary and all parties should appear at the hearing in person or by Court Call. Court reporters are not provided, and parties who want a record of motions and other proceedings must hire a privately retained certified court reporter.
Case Number: 21STCV43535 Hearing Date: February 24, 2023 Dept: 56
SUPERIOR
COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR
THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT
|
Plaintiff, vs. SASAN SHADRAVAN, Defendant. |
|
[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: MOTION FOR
JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS Date:
February 24, 2023 Time: 8:30 a.m. Dept. 56 |
MOVING
PARTY: Plaintiff
The
Court has considered the moving papers.
No opposition papers were filed.
Any opposition papers were required to have been filed and served at
least nine court days before the hearing under California Code of Civil
Procedure (“CCP”) section 1005, subdivision (b).
BACKGROUND
This action arises out of a landlord/tenant relationship. On January 10, 2023, Plaintiff filed a motion
for judgment on the pleadings (the “Motion”).
The Motion appears to request that
the Court enter a judgment in Plaintiff’s favor based on a potential settlement
agreement entered into with Defendant. A
motion for judgment on the pleadings is not the proper procedural mechanism to
seek judgment and/or enforcement of a settlement agreement.[1] The Court notes that on August 26, 2022 and
September 30, 2022, Plaintiff filed documents relating to a potential
settlement, but it is not clear that Defendant agreed to settle. The Court is also unable to determine whether
Defendant has been served with the Motion.
The Court therefore DENIES the Motion.
Moving
party is ordered to give notice of this ruling.
In consideration of the
current COVID-19 pandemic situation, the Court strongly encourages that
appearances on all proceedings, including this one, be made by LACourtConnect
if the parties do not submit on the tentative. If you instead intend to make
an appearance in person at Court on this matter, you must send an email by 2
p.m. on the last Court day before the scheduled date of the hearing to SMC_DEPT56@lacourt.org stating your
intention to appear in person. The Court will then inform you by close of
business that day of the time your hearing will be held. The time set for the
hearing may be at any time during that scheduled hearing day, or it may be
necessary to schedule the hearing for another date if the Court is unable to
accommodate all personal appearances set on that date. This rule is necessary
to ensure that adequate precautions can be taken for proper social distancing.
Parties
who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at
SMC_DEPT56@lacourt.org as directed by the instructions provided on the court
website at www.lacourt.org. If the
department does not receive an email and there are no appearances at the
hearing, the motion will be placed off calendar.
Dated this 24th day of February 2023
|
|
|
|
|
Hon. Holly J.
Fujie Judge of the
Superior Court |
[1] A motion pursuant to CCP section
664.6 is generally the mechanism for this relief, although the Court lacks
facts which demonstrate that CCP section 664.6 is applicable to this
matter.